What is your suggestion in taking out the N. Korean regime without Seoul being wiped out of the map? I'm sure if you can figure that out, you might have a position ready in the Pentagon.

And no, nuking them is not an option. If you want to nuke them, then why even bother taking out the regime because of human rights issues?

Unlike Iraq, which is mostly desert until you get north of Baghdad, the Korean peninsula north of the 38th parallel is very mountainous - and the DANKs (Dumb Assed North Koreans... especially those die-hard brainwashed commie party faithful) know very well to squirrel away much of their military infrastructure in caves and mountains.

If we ever went to war with the DANKs, it sure as hell ain't gonna be an enemy we could fight with one hand tied behind our back. Koreans are well known for being tenacious fighters on both sides of the 38th parallel. And I wouldn't be surprised if Comrade Dear Leader Kim has a nuke or two saved up for a last stand just to stir up a hornet's nest.

When there is war, human rights do not apply to all.

-Rudey

I thought the pentagon was working on smaller scale nuclears capable of providing damage without destroying neighboring areas. Aren't there other weapons that have the high kill rate without lingering damage?

-Rudey

Actually from what I understand they were working on two different types of "nukes" for specialized uses..... the first is a "nuke" bunker buster, capable of digging damn far down under a hard surface and directing the blast shockwave at the suspected bunker (there was talk of it being deployed or tested in Afghanistan or against some of the more eloborate Iraqi bunkers)..... the second was something along the lines of what you thought, a smaller nuke that is as "clean" as possible so as to eliminate as many of the after-affects as possible; these "tactical" nukes have been around since the 80's and its just a matter of refining the technology and deploymeny method. With a tactical nuke you want it to be an airburst directly above the enemy troops or material, so that they recieve the full blast effects, as well as the intitial and lethal radiation dossage (short half-life). The lingering radiation is actually as result of remaining particulate matter that has been irradiated by other "slow" or long half-life radiation (i can't remember as a nuke puts out more than one radioactive particle), so the more crap you kick-up in the blast the more radiation will be left, no matter how clean the initial blast.

While most of this is Cold War era technology for planning a defense against the masses of the Warsaw Pact, it can be easily adapted for use in the Korean Pennisula, well because they use the same tactics for the most part.

My suggestion is a full blown blocade, as we build up forces. Offer N. Korean officials amnesty so that a war can be avoided. I believe that this would work because the current American administration has the credibility to pull this off.

Most human rights groups believe that inaction will result in over a million deaths this year in N. Korea.

And yes, nuclear weapons is an option. As a matter of fact, it is part of US military doctrine.